Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Jaishree Luxury House, Kota And Anr. vs Kathotia Sons, Registered Partnership ... on 11 October, 1979 cites

S. Manuel Raj And Co. vs J. Manilal And Co. on 29 August, 1962

In Section Manuel Raj & Co. v, J. Manilal & Co. (supra) the Order Form itself contains the words "subject to Madras Jurisdiction" which was signed by the plaintiffs and sent to the defendants. In this case before me there is no such condition in the Order Form binding the plaintiff to institute a suit in the Delhi Courts only. As regards the Bill which contains the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction", as already pointed out above it is not signed by one of the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Grandhi Pitchaiah, Venkataraju And Co. vs Palukuri Jagannadham And Co., Calcutta ... on 20 August, 1973

4. On the other hand Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner, has contended that as regards the conditions Nos. 1 & 2 in the Order Form there was nothing to confer jurisdiction in the Delhi Courts. As regards condition No. 11 it is submitted that the words "any legal proceeding in respect of any matters, claims or disputes on any account or in any connection whatever shall be instituted by purchasers in the Delhi Courts which should alone have jurisdiction," clearly gave a right to the purchasers only to institute legal proceedings in the Delhi Courts and so far as the plaintiff was concerned there was no restriction on him to institute a suit at any place where the cause of action arose or the defendant resided. As regards the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" printed on the back of bill No. 1236 it is submitted that it was not a term or condition of the agreement as it is not signed by the defendants. The bill having not been signed by the defendants, any terms or condition printed on such bill could not be enforced by the plaintiff against the defendants and as such the defendants were also not entitled to enforce it against the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the mere use of the words "subject to Delhi jurisdiction" did not oust the jurisdiction of other Courts. Reliance is placed on Grandhi Pitchaiah Venkataraju & Co. v. Palukuri Jagan-nadham & Co., Calcutta, AIR 1975 Andhra Pra 32. It was held in the above case "As a result of the discussion above I have no hesitation in holding that the Rajahmundry Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that Ex. A-1 containing the words at the top "subject to Calcutta jurisdiction" do not amount to a contract between the parties which confers exclusive jurisdiction on Calcutta Courts to the exclusion of any other Court that may have jurisdiction by reason of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure." Reliance is also placed on the following observations in M/s. Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. M/s. Economic Transport Organisation, AIR 1975 Guj 72.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kondepu Raghavayya vs Elukooru Vasudevayya Chetty on 30 August, 1943

"It has been held in a number of decisions that where more Courts than one have jurisdiction to try a suit there is nothing contrary to public policy in an agreement between the parties that disputes between them would be tried at one place out of them, in this connection the decision in National Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Meghraj (AIR 1937 Nag 334) may be referred to. As was pointed out in Raghavayya v. Vasudevayya Chetty (AIR 1944 Mad 47) the relevant provision of the Contract Act which is directly applicable to such cases is contained in Section 28.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next